Dark skin consumes more energy, fair skin evolved to save energy for other organs (?)

[holderlin]

seems like you never saw an angry red head :grin:

Not really. Honestly red headed women have always been the "coolest" girl friends of mine, meaning they had very agreeable personalities. Probably has nothing to do with anything other than me growing up around mostly white people in the NW of the US. Redhead was coincidental, and yet it doesn't feel to have been coincidental. All of them were super smart too.

 

[holderlin]

Is there really propaganda urging Swedish Women to bone German black men? wtf

 

[holderlin]

That's funny

 

[holderlin]

Because there's probably Swedish women who buy into it

 

[holderlin]

There is a preference for fairer features in by and large C'mon. I was just watching this thing on Gypsies in Bulgaria where the young virgin girls go to marriage markets were guys from other families bid on them and they were saying that the women always try to make their features as fair as possible to get the better family to like them. This is just one example, but it's hard to doubt this for most of the world, especially poor nations. But this is a recent social conditioning from the dominance of the Anglo West. White has meant power, influence and security for centuries now.

 

[Dov]

An average, males in any populations darker (skin and hair) than women. Also adults in any population darker than children.
Fairness is clearly associated with femininity and infantilism, while the dark - with masculinity.

Perhaps, European fairness is a product of male sexual selection. Although it is hard to believe, but how do we know the some Y haplo to make a lot of offspring from various women.

On the other hand, we know examples of female sexual selection on children's characteristics. Large cranial in comparison with the face of modern humans. In primates, it is a sign of infantile children, and far from masculinity.

 

[Angela]

I agree with LeBrok that this may just be another part of the puzzle, not that it invalidates other factors.

""Work in our lab has shown that darkly pigmented skin has far better function, including a better barrier to water loss, stronger cohesion, and better antimicrobial defense, and we began to ponder the possible evolutionary significance of that," said Peter Elias, MD, professor of dermatology. Elias co-authored the new paper, published in the June 21, 2016 online issue of the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, with his wife and frequent research collaborator Mary L. Williams, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at UCSF.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-06-paper-current-gain-loss-heavy.html#jCp"


I'm tempted to buy into this just based on my own experiences; it's not very scientific, I know.

Years ago I went to Caneel Bay in the Virgin Islands. It billed itself as a "natural" location. Beware of ads like that. Even in the off season you paid a fortune for a little bungalow that sat right on the beach: no tv, no phone, etc. You barely saw any other guests. We thought maybe there were lots of honeymooners, and, who knows, maybe some people hiding out! When we went looking for some dance music at the main building, to discover they only had it on Saturdays, one of the waiters told us the resort was for the newly wed or the nearly dead. We were neither. First thing the brochure didn't tell us.

Anyway, another thing they didn't have was spraying for bugs, although we knew that. I just didn't know what that might mean. We spent almost our whole first night on lounge chairs and blankets right on our own stretch of beach, practically in the water. Sounds idyllic, right? Well, when I woke up in the morning I had about a thousand bites from sand fleas on my legs. By the next day they were infected. I had to take the resort motor launch to the main island to see a doctor, who gave me a massive shot of penicillin. (That's another thing we hadn't realized: no doctor on the whole island where we were staying.) He also bestowed the benefit of his vast experience on me: he told me it was always the people who looked like a bottle of milk who got bitten multiple times and then got an infection. The tropics were not for people like me. Now that they also didn't put on the brochures!

In addition to the anti-microbial properties of dark skin, I think there is some truth to the fact that dark skinned people don't lose as much water. It's always the pink or dead white skinned types who wind up with sun stroke. It only gets worse the older you get too.

So, as I said, they may be onto something here.

 

[Dov]

Statistics from various dating websites usually show the opposite - women of every race more often respond to White men than to Black men.

Also, if this statistics are true, black women are even less popular. They are the most unpopular. This is not surprising, the black color far from of femininity and infantilism. But there are and other reasons in all these cases.

 

[Minty]

Also, if this statistics are true, black women are even less popular. They are the most unpopular. This is not surprising, the black color far from of femininity and infantilism. But there are and other reasons in all these cases.

I think this is quite true. This is even the case in Asia where men tend to prefer fair skinned women, if you take a look at the media in Asia, there are virtually no dark skinned women portrayed as a sex symbols, by contrast there is a few men who are tanned that are quite popular.

In less developed nations, the poor generally have to work outdoors (like a farm, for example) and therefore develop darker skin. The wealthy in these countries, work indoors at 'desk jobs' and do not develop 'dark' skin. Darker skin symbolizes being poor.

Conversely, in western countries a tan means that you have disposable income to take vacations into sunny climates or have free time away from a desk job to lay on the beach and get a tan. A tan symbolizes wealth.

This also explains the social phenomena in Asian countries like China and Japan where women carry umbrellas on sunny days. Similarly, in India, getting tanned makes someone less valuable for marriage.

 

[davef]

To me, its not so much the skin color as it is the shape of the nose, the eyes, torso, etc (I'm keeping it PG) which determines physical attractiveness. I've seen my share of gorgeous and dark Iranian and Indian women.

 

[Minty]

To me, its not so much the skin color as it is the shape of the nose, the eyes, torso, etc (I'm keeping it PG) which determines physical attractiveness. I've seen my share of gorgeous and dark Iranian and Indian women.

This is a wonderful message for Asian women of dark complexion, go for white men. They like "chocolates"!

 

[Dov]

I think this is quite true. This is even the case in Asia where men tend to prefer fair skinned women, if you take a look at the media in Asia, there are virtually no dark skinned women portrayed as a sex symbols, by contrast there is a few men who are tanned that are quite popular.

In less developed nations, the poor generally have to work outdoors (like a farm, for example) and therefore develop darker skin. The wealthy in these countries, work indoors at 'desk jobs' and do not develop 'dark' skin. Darker skin symbolizes being poor.

Conversely, in western countries a tan means that you have disposable income to take vacations into sunny climates or have free time away from a desk job to lay on the beach and get a tan. A tan symbolizes wealth.

This also explains the social phenomena in Asian countries like China and Japan where women carry umbrellas on sunny days. Similarly, in India, getting tanned makes someone less valuable for marriage.

Yes, there is also cultural and social aspects. And it certainly changed in centuries. In Russia 150 years ago, a big belly was considered a sign of wealth, as well as probably the "good genes", that can stock up fat in case of crop failure. Now, in the era of the grocery abundance, thick body is associated with unhealthy lifestyle and "bad genes".

 

[Maleth]

Not really. Honestly red headed women have always been the "coolest" girl friends of mine, meaning they had very agreeable personalities. Probably has nothing to do with anything other than me growing up around mostly white people in the NW of the US. Redhead was coincidental, and yet it doesn't feel to have been coincidental. All of them were super smart too.

If you never seen an aggressive (both verbally and physical) blond or redhead then we must be living in two different planets.

Just for some Humor

 

[Coriolan]

If fairer skin wastes less energy, does that mean that fairer people can potentially work harder? Is it what we see without leaving racial divides? Do fairer skinned Botswanans work harder than darker Congolese? Do Koreans work harder than Indonesians? Do Poles work harder than Greeks? Do North Italians work harder than South Italians? I am not asking if they are more intelligent or efficient or successful. Just if they seem to have more energy available for work.

Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app

 

[LeBrok]

If fairer skin wastes less energy, does that mean that fairer people can potentially work harder? Is it what we see without leaving racial divides? Do fairer skinned Botswanans work harder than darker Congolese? Do Koreans work harder than Indonesians? Do Poles work harder than Greeks? Do North Italians work harder than South Italians? I am not asking if they are more intelligent or efficient or successful. Just if they seem to have more energy available for work.

Sent from my LG-D620 using Eupedia Forum mobile app

I doubt that energy savings in skin are big enough to compensate for calories needed for hard work. If anything the climatic "sweet spot" might explain it better. Farming communities of Europe and Northern Europe in particular had to be extra busy to survive long winter and work fast through short summer. In hotter parts of the world working hard might lead to heat exhaustion.
Actually I find Chinese, Koreans and Japanese to be on top of workaholics list. They are also the farmers of moderate climatic zone.

 

[Angela]

I doubt that energy savings in skin are big enough to compensate for calories needed for hard work. If anything the climatic "sweet spot" might explain it better. Farming communities of Europe and Northern Europe in particular had to be extra busy to survive long winter and work fast through short summer. In hotter parts of the world working hard might lead to heat exhaustion.
Actually I find Chinese, Koreans and Japanese to be on top of workaholics list. They are also the farmers of moderate climatic zone.

Totally agree.

The siesta served a very real purpose in the past. You couldn't do hard work outside for a good six months of the year during the hottest, sunniest parts of the day from 12 to 3. That was certainly the case in Liguria, which has a Mediterranean climate. Of course, the farmers had to make up for it by rising when it was still dark and then doing inside work far into the night. Still, while further inland they might be housebound for parts of the winter, in these places with a Mediterranean climate you could grow crops at least twice a year, so there wasn't much of an off season.

You can see the effect of climate on "northern European" descended people in parts of the U.S. like Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi etc., which are very "Anglo" states. They're stereotyped as being slow moving and slow talking, but there's a reason for it. In Florida for more than six months a year walking from your air conditioned condo to your air conditioned car can leave you exhausted and drenched in sweat. I don't know how people could bear it before those modern conveniences, much less work outdoors in it.

That's one of the reasons that they imported slaves from Africa to work in the sugar cane, cotton, and tobacco fields. They tried using indentured servants from Europe and Indians, but they died at an alarming rate. The African slaves didn't. They were not only acculturated to climates like that, but, if this study is correct, their phenotype made them more suited to it.

 

[davef]

Interesting that Africans were sold as slaves due to their ability to withstand the heat. I never knew that! Irish were commonly sold as slaves as well I think but since they're north euros they're adapted to colder climates and probably died en masse in the heat.

 

[holderlin]

Interesting that Africans were sold as slaves due to their ability to withstand the heat. I never knew that! Irish were commonly sold as slaves as well I think but since they're north euros they're adapted to colder climates and probably died en masse in the heat.

Interesting fact likely unrelated to skin pigmentation. When they were building the railroads in America it was a standard practice to include a certain number of Irish in every work crew because they were very good fighters when encountering hostile Native Americans.

I always thought that was pretty awesome, especially if you're Irish.

 

[MOESAN]

sexual selection exist in precise time and place and class, not always on the same direction, according to ethnies, but the selection is not acting the same over the full pop, so the results are very uneasy to calculate concerning future of pops.
class and sex: serious studies prove women have as a mean a little bit fairer skin than mean males of the same group (what is not the case for hair and eyes; and yet, the most of women has fairer skin on visage, not always on the whole body): if the group is heterogenous even if not too much, what is the more general case, the upper class men marry the fairest women: sexual attractivity here, but with an impact upon social classes; but the global result is uncertain: in ancient times, rulers classes mate with more than a female and pass more DNA than others in a group; yes here we could see fairer skins densify with time IF THE RULERS MEN WERE NOT OF A CONQUERANT DARKER TYPE! in this last case, the effect of fair women is nulled by the effect of darker men! In today times, the higher social classes give birth to less children than the lower classes: so the fairer women has less posterity than the lower class women! opposite effect at the global scale of pop. The final result could be a more sensitive "racial" selection when the pops were already very heterogenous.
I spoke above of theorical cases: in already well crossed pops, the sexual selection can be followed by a "racial" one.
And according to time and place too, modes evolve: in Middle Ages, the nobility was less exposed to sun than the peasants, by instance; fairness of skin was associated to social level: but her there was no genetic clear effect for the most; the mesologic action (way of life) was enough to segregate for the most. In the 1950s the success of Californian symbole in Europe worshipped the tanned skins sign of health, sportive and agreeable life. The genetic impact here is surely as slight than in the precedent case.
And as said someones here (thanks!) sexual "canons" can oppose men and women: prized dark men - not too dark nevertheless, in racist America! - and fair women; here too artifices can reduce at a very small scale the genetic imput.
To conlude, it is almost impossible to estimate true genetic imput of these kinds of selection at a global scale, even if in some precise social class cases we see it has some imput.

 

[Minty]

Neanderthals, who ranged from Western Europe to Central Asia, probably had the same distribution of skin color as modern humans, including fair skin and freckles. Fair skin is an advantage at northern latitudes because it is more efficient at generating vitamin D from weak sunlight. Freckles are clusters of cells that overproduce melanin granules; they are triggered by exposure to sunlight and are most noticeable on pale skin. BNC2 is one of several skin color genes and it influences saturation of skin color and freckling. It is a Neanderthal gene and is found in Eurasian populations, most commonly in Europeans (70% have at least one copy of the Neanderthal version).

According to this ppl with light skin got that from neanderthal genomes, so I am thinking whether this has anything to do with preferences of mate selection...

It seems like European descent ppl tend to have a fondness for dark skin women, where as Asian ppl don't.

Recent research suggests, people in China, Japan and other East Asian countries have about 20 percent more Neanderthal DNA than do Europeans. It is now scientifically irrefutable fact that the "human species" has been found to contain a substantial quantity of DNA (at least 20%) from other hominid populations not classified as Homo sapien; such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, African archaic, Homo erectus, and now possibly even "Hobbit" (Homo floresiensis).

If not given drugs to prevent infant death, the pregnant body of a rhesus negative mother will attack, try to reject, and even kill her own offspring if it is by a rhesus positive man.

The Domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a sub-species of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), and they produce hybrids.

There are numerous other examples of where two separate species (for example with different numbers of chromosomes) can also produce viable offspring, yet are considered separate species. That said, humanity has been shown to be, genetically speaking, a hybrid species that did not all share the same hunter-gatherer ancestry in Africa.This means humans are not all the same race, out of Africa theory is debunked!






1. African DNA found in Yorkshireman

In 2007 the Daily Mail ran a report on John Revis, a Yorkshireman who was so blond and blue-eyed when he was younger that he thought he was directly descended from Viking or Anglo-Saxon stock. However, when his DNA was analysed as part of a wider study linking the male Y-chromosome to northern surnames, he was found to be haplogroup A1.

John RevisA1 is very rare and highly specific to west Africa. John Revis shared this genetic match with 7 other northern Englishmen with the surname Revis. He had traced his direct paternal line back to the mid-1700s and found his ancestors where mostly bakers from the north of England; there was nothing in his family history to suggest recent African origins. However, his DNA presented the first genetic evidence of Africans living among ‘indigenous’ British people.Africans were first recorded as being present in northern England 1,800 years ago, when they formed a contingent of the Roman garrisons defending Hadrian’s Wall against raids by Scottish tribes. Much later in the 16th and 17th centuries the slave trade also brought an influx of Africans to the British Isles, and by the late 18th century there were around 10,000 black people living in Britain. Some former slaves rose quite high in society.

It is possible that John Revis descends directly from the north African clans that comprised a small part of the armies of Roman Britain from 43 – 410 AD, but the Roman occupation left only a tiny genetic footprint on the modern English population and it is thought more likely that the source of his African DNA is a slave from West Africa.

The contributor of the A1 chromosome to the Revis surname may not be its founder. He may have been a first-generation immigrant African, or a European-looking man carrying the A1 Y-chromosome introduced into England some time earlier. It could have been many generations earlier, with descendants of earlier lineages now extinct, or not yet tested.

Could ppl with African genes that look white find dark women more attractive than ppl who don't? I am thinking that the preferences might not be just cultural but it is embedded in your genes.